HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 2:50 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,822
Question ?? example ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Personally speaking, I still think SkyTrain should be expanded linking one of the two regional centres, but a light rail network should complement the expansion of the SkyTrain.
Could you give a specific example, Deasine? I'm not questioning your statement in any way; I just don't get a mental picture of what exactly
you mean. Which two centres would be linked, and via what routing?

What are the "two" regional centres, for example. I thought that with Metrotown and Coquitlam, there were four, if you count Lougheed Town Centre and Surrey as the other two.

(If you do a simple graphic, that would be even better. I'm just curious, that's all. Thanks a lot)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 4:38 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
Also as for density in Newton Surrey doesnt plan to allow towers in that area for a while atleast. They want to stick to little apartments and avoid office that way.
Then.. why expand Expo Line any further in Surrey? Use some secondary transit system (LRT, BRT) to tie Surrey's neighbourhoods together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 5:42 PM
metroXpress's Avatar
metroXpress metroXpress is offline
(||||||-||||-||||||)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 2,220
^ because there is a demand for it.

In fact, Surrey is growing!
__________________
"Think simple…reduce the whole
of its parts into the simplest terms,
Getting back to first principles"


~ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 5:53 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
^ If Fleetwood and Newton and Guildford are all going to stay low-density, then where do you propose that we extend the Expo Line to?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 5:55 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
(If you do a simple graphic, that would be even better. I'm just curious, that's all. Thanks a lot)
I'll do it eventually. Very busy with life right now. I'll post it on the Fantasies thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 9:20 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
I'm thinking both lines towards fleet wood and newton are going to be needed. Maybe not tomorrow. But certainly some time in the future.

Although personally what I would do right now even before extending the expo line at all. Is to create a nice layout of BRT routes.

Routes I would like to see would be

King George Station down King George Hwy to White Rock

King George Station along Fraser Hwy to at least Cloverdale and Preferably Langley City

Langley City to Maple Ridge

(Not related to Surrey but needed in my opinion) Future evergreen line Coq to Maple Ridge BRT.

There might be other routes needed but those should be the main ones for sure.

The BRT routes themselves wouldn't necessarly have to run ever 2-3 minutes like they do for the 99-Bline But I think one ever 10 mins and 15 mins max would be good. Maybe during peak time possibly 5 mins. But not sure if that would be too frequent.
I think so too.

In fact, I think if Skytrain is supposed to drive ToD and urbanization, I think it should actually head to Newton first.

Surrey's plans for Newton are moving forward, and there are a lot of opportunities for the area. There is a lot of land available to be redeveloped. Even if there aren't high rises, you can still get very good density out of low rise condos and rowhouses. As the neighbourhood improves, I think you will see mid rise and high rises eventually, with office and retail space moving onto defunct industrial land.

As well, it would be a good location for a transit hub. The BCER crosses through Newton, as do many local bus routes and major roads connecting other centers. Skytrain connecting to Light rail or commuter trains on the BCER into Langley and Abbostford would be huge for South of Fraser and probably the cheapest option.

If Skytrain extends to the East to Guildford, I think it should go all the way to the freeway. At the freeway around 156 or 160, it could connect to a park n' ride, rapid bus or future LRT. Then Guildford would also be a good Hub.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 9:30 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Whichever way they build first, it seems logical to install a fork/flyover in the guideway somewhere around Surrey Central... King George is too far south.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 10:36 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,192
Here's my post from Page 6 of this thread:

Here's a diagram I did back in January from the $14B for Transit thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
If it is going down 104th Ave., then it makes sense to me to install a wye at 104th rather than looping back up from King George Station.
That would leave the tail track at King George Station available to head south down King George Highway.
That would be feasible (it was done for the M-Line) and the interruption (using longer trains running on single track while the other is reconstructed)
would only affect Surrey Central and King George Stations.

In order to serve Surrey Central Station area, there would have to be a station on the 104th line at the wye (i.e. at King George HIghway)
or, as Cornholio mentioned, have the wye south of Surrey Central Station (which would make for curvey detour on the line).

As for whether Skytrain is appropriate for Langley - if Surrey City Centre is to be the next downtown in the regional - as big as Vancouver -
then it makes sense to view the Expo line as feeding Surrey City Centre, not just feeding Downtown Vancouver.
I do agree it would be a long ride from Langley to downtown Vancouver.

Here's a good Global Air Pic of the area showing the hydro ROW and the SUrrey Central Station area and 104th Ave.



And here are my suggested allignments - I prefer the red line with a station at King George Highway.
If Surrey orients its transit (bus) plaza between the two stations, it would work OK and transfers from Guildford to King George could transfer at Gateway Station.
I suppose there could be an issue though with bus passengers having a choice of two nearby stations (esp. if one branch has more service than the other).
The blue routing would focus a lot of passenger traffic on Surrey Central Station (possibly overloading it in the long term?), plus the red routing allows more stations in
a more central location in Surrey's downtown than the blue line (which is further to the south closer to King George Station).
As for the overpass, Skytrain can make sharper turns than the Canada Line trains, so the structure wouldn't have to be as massive as at Bridgeport Station
- think Columbia Station-Skybridge switches.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2009, 11:12 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
Nice pictures, thanks. King George station just seems to be a mistake given the current plans - it's pointed the wrong way for either expansion. I suppose it could be salvaged as part of a Newton extension. Just turn the line back southward after the station, making it curve back onto the King George Hwy right-of-way. King George is the wrong place to start a Guildford extension, but that wouldn't stop the Ministry of Transit, lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2009, 12:10 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,018


Not if you want an express service between Surrey and Langley and want to have LRT connect local town centres. Best of both worlds if you ask me.

SkyTrain is really good at being a quasi-local quasi-commuter train. Let LRT do what it does best.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2009, 12:16 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
Nice pictures, thanks. King George station just seems to be a mistake given the current plans - it's pointed the wrong way for either expansion. I suppose it could be salvaged as part of a Newton extension. Just turn the line back southward after the station, making it curve back onto the King George Hwy right-of-way. King George is the wrong place to start a Guildford extension, but that wouldn't stop the Ministry of Transit, lol.
Yeah, it's pretty clear from where it is placed and the direction the tracks point in that the original plan was for the tracks to continue straight down the Fraser Highway to Langley.

Which isn't a bad plan in of itself. The buildup around the Fraser Highway has been incredible, and by passing through the region diagonally it would offer the fastest travel times (as it's the only route that is diagonal) and come as close to everyone as possible.

But I don't think it has seen the same kind of density build up as either Guildford or Newton (now and in the future).

So King George does seem to be in the wrong location if you want to hit both and not go straight down FH. It might be best to write it off and demolish it, putting the fork and flyover in the line after Surrey Central near the Best Buy. On track heads South on King George, the other heads east on 100 ave. Then rebuild a new King George station basically accorss the street from the current one, or on the east branch at E Whalley Ring Road.

And King George, as built, isn't the best station for a hub anyway. It is rather tall, and has side platforms, meaning someone coming from Newton going to Guildford would need to go all the way down, then all the way up. Transfering at Surrey Central's island platform would be easier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2009, 12:20 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,192
Yeah.
The current allignment was probably intended to either go down Fraser Highway or down past Surrey Memorial Hospital to Newton.

You can see potential southwards RoW east of the hospital in this 2007 Global Air Photo:
(On Google, it shows that there is space for the RoW to swing back to King George Hwy and the east side of the street looks like it could accommodate it best (rather than a median allignment which would create station issues))


Last edited by officedweller; Oct 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2009, 10:20 PM
metroXpress's Avatar
metroXpress metroXpress is offline
(||||||-||||-||||||)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk View Post
^ If Fleetwood and Newton and Guildford are all going to stay low-density, then where do you propose that we extend the Expo Line to?
Because of where King George station is, we should just follow the original plan and extend it down along Fraser Hwy to Fleetwood and even Langley.
Either a LRT or Skytrain line should also run on Scott Road. (There are several low-rise apartments along the route and it's one of the busy corridors)
And another would take us down King George to connect with South Surrey/ White Rock.
__________________
"Think simple…reduce the whole
of its parts into the simplest terms,
Getting back to first principles"


~ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2009, 11:22 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Should probs go into transit fantasy's thread, but here is what I had in mind for a LRT system in Surrey:



The way I've pictured LRT in Surrey is that it would take on the form of the Street-car as proposed for Vancouver, and not a system like the C-train in Calgary.

The blue line figure-8 loop is just that, a giant figure-8, providing service down 100th, 108th, and double the amount down the busiest corridor, 104th.

The red line is a service route for 88 street and the less dense areas of 104th that would also serve as a link for the LRT cars to go to the service yard which I expect would be down in the flats.

The green line is a route that serves south-west Surrey, though in place of it I could imagine a skytrain line that goes south to serve Whiterock.

All lines are placed best to make transfers minimal, provide maximum access to current & future skytrain stations, provide the most service to the busiest corridors (Surrey Center and 104th street), and orient the transit to take users to Surrey's developing downtown.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2009, 7:54 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,192
Note sure whether this Open Bid has been posted before - background info is interesting:

Reference No. Q9-0081
Title: Surrey Rapid Transit Study Public Affairs
Type: Request for Proposal (RFP)
Closing Date: November 4, 2009
Closing Time: 2:00:00pm (Vancouver Time)

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Docu...%20%20RFP.ashx

Quote:
1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“TransLink”) is responsible for
planning, financing and operating the public transportation system throughout Metro Vancouver
pursuant to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. Additional
information about TransLink is available on our web-site at www.translink.ca.

1.2 The Work of this Contract is for public consultation, government and stakeholder relations
consulting services for Phase 1 and 2 of the Surrey Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis only.
TransLink may at its sole and absolute discretion, award additional phases of work related to this
study to the successful consultant, subject to the work of this contract and available budget, or
alternatively, TransLink may issue a request for proposals for any additional work.

1.3 Consultants shall note that an Inter-Organization Communications Framework has been
developed and the study’s Consultation Principles have been developed and will be provided to
interested consultants upon request. These high level principles and communications protocol will
be part of the Project Management Plan and should be adhered to by all consultants and Project
Team members.

1.4 Another TransLink RFP has been released for the planning and modeling aspects of the Surrey
Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis. The work provided by the public consultation, government
and stakeholder relations consultant links in directly to the work of the planning and modeling
consultant and project teams. The close collaboration of the two groups ensures that public and
stakeholder input/comments etc will be integrated into the technical planning work.

1.5 TransLink and the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (“the
Ministry”) are undertaking a study to examine a focused range of rapid transit alignments and
technologies for rapid transit expansion in Surrey (“Network Alternatives”). Network
alternatives1 will be developed and evaluated under a Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE)
framework. The evaluation will be used by the Sponsor Agencies to identify a preferred rapid
transit network alternative.


1.6 The Study is being undertaken in three phases (see Surrey Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis
Phases in Appendix 4)

(a) Phase 1 - Shortlist Identification and Evaluation: Alignment and technology
alternatives are identified and screened for technical feasibility to arrive at a shortlist of 3
- 4 network alternatives for further development in Phase 2. Each network alternative
will define alignment and technology options for identified priority corridors within
Surrey.

(b) Phase 2 - Alternative Development and Evaluation: Shortlist network alternatives are
further developed and evaluated to support a decision on a preferred network alternative.

(c) Phase 3 - Design Development: After selection of a preferred network alternative,
further design development and costing is undertaken. Phase 3 will establish a budget,
timeline and phasing for the project and provide the basis for project definition, securing
funding and procurement.

(d) This RFP addresses Phases 1 and 2 only. Phase 3 will be addressed by a subsequent RFP
after the decision on a preferred network alternative is made by TransLink and the
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (the "Ministry").

(e) The Contractor selected for undertaking work under this contract will not be excluded
from future bidding opportunities for Surrey Rapid Transit.

1.7 Rapid transit within Surrey has long been considered. It has been the subject of several studies
and has been acknowledged in plans since the early 1990s.


1.8 In 1993, the Metro Vancouver Transport 2021 Long-Range Plan identified the need for
Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS – SkyTrain, LRT or separated busway) along
KGH/104 and busways along Fraser Hwy to connect municipal centres. The Medium-Range Plan
projected only bus lanes by 2006. This was reconfirmed in the Livable Region Strategic Plan
(LRSP) (1996), which also proposed dedicated bus lanes on Fraser Hwy and Hwy 1.

1.9 BC Transit later identified the King George Highway/152nd corridor between Surrey City Centre
and White Rock, and the 104th Ave corridor between Surrey City Centre and Guildford as Rapid
Bus corridors. In 1998-1999, BC Transit and Surrey undertook studies of alignments and rightof-
way requirements for King George Highway / 104th Ave Rapid Bus, targeting 2006
implementation. Fraser Highway between Surrey City Centre and Cloverdale/Langley was
identified by the City of Surrey as another candidate Rapid Bus corridor for future study.

1.10 TransLink’s Ten Year Outlook (2004) confirmed the commitment to the “King George Busway”,
but with expected delivery delayed until 2013.

1.11 The importance of rapid transit in Surrey was reconfirmed through the South of Fraser Area
Transit Plan (2007). Once again King George Highway/104th Ave were identified as priority
corridors for bus or rail rapid transit. Fraser Highway was also identified as a future rapid transit
corridor within Surrey. The plan included an assessment of the Feasibility of Operating
Passenger Rail on the Interurban Corridor (Phase 1- Technical Memorandum No. 1),
recommending it be preserved as a corridor for possible long term rapid transit consideration.
Also recognized in the plan was the importance of connections to other potential future rapid
transit corridors on Hwy 1 & 200th St.

1.12 In January 2006, the Province of British Columbia announced the Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1
Project as part of the Gateway Program, scheduled for 2013 completion. This widening of
Highway 1and construction of a new 10 lane bridge is to include HOV lanes and priority access
to be used by express buses travelling between Langley, Surrey and Burnaby.

1.13 TransLink’s 2008 Transportation & Financial Plan identified the need for a Surrey Rapid Transit
Study to examine long term technology, alignment and phasing alternatives. This direction was
reaffirmed in TransLink’s 10-Year Transportation and Financial Plan (2009).

1.14 In January 2008, the Province of British Columbia announced a Provincial Transit Plan. This
Plan identified a significant program of rapid transit expansion to be completed by 2020. Within
Surrey the plan proposed a 6km SkyTrain extension to Fleetwood, and RapidBus corridors along
King George Highway to White Rock & Fraser Hwy to Langley.

1.15 Since Surrey Rapid Bus studies were conducted in 1998- 1999 the planning context has changed
significantly, necessitating a more current and rigorous examination of rapid transit alternatives in
Surrey. Those changes include:

(a) Major increases of bus service in Surrey coupled with a reorientation of bus network to
better serve internal South of Fraser travel due to the implementation of the South of
Fraser ATP;

(b) Ongoing growth in population and employment in Langley & Surrey, including
significant development in previously rural areas;

(c) New & planned transportation infrastructure that will have profound effect on travel
patterns in study area: Golden Ears Bridge (2009), Canada Line (2009), Gateway
Program (2013);

(d) The Provincial Transit Plan’s identification of previously unplanned rapid transit options;

(e) Renewed interest in the suitability of the former BCER interurban rail corridor for
passenger rail;

(f) The City of Surrey is updating its Official Community Plan and Strategic Transportation
Plan, with a continued focus on Surrey City Centre;

(g) Renewed civic investment is occurring within Surrey City Centre, including the
development of Simon Fraser University Surrey, and the planned relocation of Surrey
City Hall;

(h) TransLink led Transit Facility Projects (including at Surrey Central, Newton, and
Semiahmoo) which will shape demand for transit around key nodes within the study area.
See also APPENDIX 1 - SCOPE OF WORK

Quote:
The study area is currently served by the four easternmost SkyTrain stations along the Expo Line,
as well as a combination of local and express bus services. Recent bus service improvements
place the key corridors in the study area within the Frequent Transit Network (transit service at
least every 15 minutes, 15 hours a day, 7 days a week as defined by TransLink). A King George
Hwy and 104th Avenue B-Line limited-stop express bus route is planned for implementation
between 152nd Street and 72nd Avenue in March 2010. While these recent and upcoming transit
improvements provide important benefits, they are not expected to be sufficient to achieve local
and regional transportation and land use objectives within the study area.

Last edited by officedweller; Oct 21, 2009 at 8:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 2:48 AM
metroXpress's Avatar
metroXpress metroXpress is offline
(||||||-||||-||||||)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 2,220
^ It is...I remember reading that only 4.4 % of the people living in the suburbs use the public transit system. 90% of them make trips in the region with their own automobiles.
__________________
"Think simple…reduce the whole
of its parts into the simplest terms,
Getting back to first principles"


~ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 2:50 AM
metroXpress's Avatar
metroXpress metroXpress is offline
(||||||-||||-||||||)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
Should probs go into transit fantasy's thread, but here is what I had in mind for a LRT system in Surrey:


The way I've pictured LRT in Surrey is that it would take on the form of the Street-car as proposed for Vancouver, and not a system like the C-train in Calgary.

The blue line figure-8 loop is just that, a giant figure-8, providing service down 100th, 108th, and double the amount down the busiest corridor, 104th.

The red line is a service route for 88 street and the less dense areas of 104th that would also serve as a link for the LRT cars to go to the service yard which I expect would be down in the flats.

The green line is a route that serves south-west Surrey, though in place of it I could imagine a skytrain line that goes south to serve Whiterock.

All lines are placed best to make transfers minimal, provide maximum access to current & future skytrain stations, provide the most service to the busiest corridors (Surrey Center and 104th street), and orient the transit to take users to Surrey's developing downtown.

Never forget the communities south of 88th. We have lots of people near 72nd, 64th and even as low as 58th. I think it's ideal to have the line go to at least 72nd and wait for other connections to South Surrey/White Rock.
__________________
"Think simple…reduce the whole
of its parts into the simplest terms,
Getting back to first principles"


~ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 11:24 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by metroXpress View Post
^ It is...I remember reading that only 4.4 % of the people living in the suburbs use the public transit system. 90% of them make trips in the region with their own automobiles.
Is that not perhaps because suburban transit service usually tends to be scant and infrequent, with few bus routes, and long, long waiting times between buses? Such a situation really obliges someone living in the suburbs, especially the exurbs or less dense suburbs - to own a car.

It's a little like the syndrome of car-saturated, smog-choked Los Angeles. Although they now have a rapid rail (a hideous, elevated concrete thing), for years the bus service, even in the central areas, was so infrequent, and the buses so dirty (and often dangerous to ride on) that people HAD to use cars to get around that enormous, sprawling, low-density megalopolis, which encouraged car use with its vast freeway network. (Where else on Earth would you find something rivalling "The Stack?")

While living in the suburbs of a modest-sized city like Vancouver is not the same thing, the lack of density cannot support a frequent, dense transit system, and most people use their cars by second nature because, in effect, there is no choice.

Hopefully we can change that. Vancouver is innovative. Other cities are now using us as a model for density. We'll show them what good planning can do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2009, 3:56 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,083
driving around surrey is getting pretty bad - i am sure if they had a good option to get from one end to the other they would love it

my friend lives in fleetwood and works on scott road near 80th ish - anyway it takes him 2 busses and skytrain - he has to bus to king george than get on skytrain to scott road and than bus again from there

I don't understand why there aren't more direct bus routes - most busses seem to spoke out from skytrain? and all busses must go there? can't they start serving riders better by getting them from point a to b if noth points are going to be in surrey?
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2009, 4:52 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
driving around surrey is getting pretty bad - i am sure if they had a good option to get from one end to the other they would love it

my friend lives in fleetwood and works on scott road near 80th ish - anyway it takes him 2 busses and skytrain - he has to bus to king george than get on skytrain to scott road and than bus again from there

I don't understand why there aren't more direct bus routes - most busses seem to spoke out from skytrain? and all busses must go there? can't they start serving riders better by getting them from point a to b if noth points are going to be in surrey?
Tell your friend to take the #388 and transfer to #319 at Scott @ Nordel... unless he live really far from 88th Avenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:15 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.